I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. From the evidence provided in the operator’s case file, it is clear that the registered keeper of the vehicle is ARVAL UK LTD, which provided the operator with the name of the person which had hired or leased the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. This company/person is xxxxx to which the operator then issued a Notice to Hirer. The appellant has confirmed in their appeal to the operator that the person xxxxx, is the hirer of the vehicle. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states “the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. Section 13 (2) goes on to state that “the creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given – (a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement. (b) A copy of the hire agreement; and (c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.” As such, Section 14(2)(a) requires the documents referred to above to be sent together with the Notice to Hirer. The operator has failed to provide a copy of these documents in its evidence to POPLA. As a result, I am not satisfied that the operator has met the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012. I therefore conclude that the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.
Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal or evidence at this stage
The Notice to Keeper Fails to Identify the Relevant Land – No Keeper Liability Under PoFA 2012
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) allows a parking operator to hold a vehicle’s registered keeper liable only if the Notice to Keeper (NtK) strictly complies with the requirements set out in Paragraph 9.
Paragraph 9(2)(a) states that the notice must:
"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates."
The NtK issued by Parking Eye merely states “ASDA BEXLEYHEATH” as the location, without giving the full postal address or any further detail. This is wholly inadequate to satisfy the requirement to identify the “relevant land” under PoFA.
Importantly, there are two ASDA locations in Bexleyheath:
1. ASDA Bexleyheath Superstore – The Broadway, Bexleyheath DA6 7BN
2. ASDA Petrol Station – Crook Log, Bexleyheath DA6 8EQ
Without a full and specific address on the PCN, there is no way for the registered keeper to determine where the vehicle was alleged to have been parked, and no fair opportunity to verify or contest the claim. This ambiguity is material and renders the notice non-compliant with PoFA, and as such, the keeper cannot be held liable.
As a result, the NtK fails to specify “the relevant land” as required under PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(a), and Parking Eye has not met the conditions required to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the keeper. This step is necessary for them to subsequently transfer the liability to myself (the Hirer).
The operator is also put to strict proof that they held a valid contract with the landowner to operate and issue PCNs at “ASDA BEXLEYHEATH”. Any evidence submitted must be unredacted and must include all elements required under Section 14.1(a) to (j) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
Before issuing any parking charges, the operator must hold written confirmation from the landowner that includes:
1. Identity of the landowner
2. A boundary map of the managed land
3. Any applicable byelaws
4. Permission granted and its duration
5. Parking terms and conditions (e.g. free periods, tariffs, exemptions)
6. Method of issuing charges (e.g. windscreen or post)
7. Responsibility for obtaining consents (e.g. planning, signage)
8. Documentation to be supplied to authorised bodies on request
9. Approach to handling appeals
All of the above must be evidenced in full and unredacted if the operator relies on landowner authority. A simple letter of authority does not satisfy the requirements of section 14.
As there is no lawful basis to pursue the keeper, the liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer, therefore the PCN is invalid and this appeal must be upheld.
Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
You may want to remind the POPLA assessor that you are appealing as the Hirer and therefore cannot be liable for the charge! Just quoting PoFA to the assessor without establishing that the driver is not identified and your capacity as the appellant is that of the Hirer.
Introduction
I am appealing as the Hirer of the vehicle to which this Parking Charge Notice relates. The driver has not been identified.
I note that ParkingEye has failed to address the central grounds of my appeal, namely:
1. Their non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14; and
2. The absence of any evidence as to the identity of the driver.
The operator’s failure to engage with or rebut these material points may reasonably be interpreted as a concession that the requirements of Schedule 4 have not been met. Accordingly, there is no lawful basis to transfer liability for this charge to me as the Hirer.
Conclusion
I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal. The Operator has failed:
• To comply with the statutory requirements to transfer liability to a Hirer;
• To produce any evidence identifying the driver; and
• To engage substantively with any of the key issues raised.
As a result, this charge is legally unenforceable against me, as the Hirer, and must be cancelled.
1. Failure to Address or Refute PoFA Non-Compliance
ParkingEye has failed to address or rebut the central ground of my appeal: that their Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4).
To lawfully transfer liability from the vehicle-hire company (as Keeper) to me (as Hirer), the Operator must meet the strict conditions set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4.
Paragraph 13(2) states:
The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—
• (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
• (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
• (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
Paragraph 14(1) states that a creditor may only pursue the Hirer if they are unable to pursue the Keeper and have fully complied with the requirements of Paragraph 14(2).
Paragraph 14(2) requires that the NtH must be accompanied by:
o (a) A copy of the Notice to Keeper;
o (b) The documents listed in Paragraph 13(2).
As clearly stated in paragraph 14(2)(a), alongside the ‘Notice to Hirer’, the operator must give the hirer a copy of the notice to keeper, as well as the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2).
ParkingEye has failed to provide me (as Hirer) any of these relevant documents:
• The Notice to Keeper;
• A copy of the hire agreement;
• A copy of the signed statement of liability;
• A statement from the hire company confirming the hire details.
As these documents were not included, the Operator has not met the statutory conditions under PoFA Schedule 4 for transferring liability from the Keeper to the Hirer.
• Paragraph 13(2) requires that the following documents be served with the NtK:
o (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
o (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
o (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
The above is not quite correct. Paragraph 13 is about the obligations on the creditor and the Keeper. Paragraph 14 is about the obligations on the creditor and the Hirer.
In particular:
• Paragraph 13(2) requires that the following documents be served with the NtK:
o (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
o (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
o (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
• Paragraph 14(1) states that a creditor may only pursue the Hirer if they are unable to pursue the Keeper and have fully complied with the requirements of Paragraph 14(2).
• Paragraph 14(2) requires that the NtH must be accompanied by:
o (a) A copy of the Notice to Keeper;
o (b) The documents listed in Paragraph 13(2).
As clearly stated in paragraph 14(2)(a), alongside the ‘Notice to Hirer’, the operator must give the hirer a copy of the notice to keeper, as well as the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2).
ParkingEye has failed to provide me (as Hirer):
• The Notice to Keeper;
• A copy of the hire agreement;
• A copy of the signed statement of liability;
• A statement from the hire company confirming the hire details.
POPLA Rebuttal – Response to Operator’s Evidence
Appellant: xxxx (Hirer)
POPLA Reference: xxxx
Parking Charge Notice: xxx/xxx
Vehicle: xxxx
Introduction
I note that ParkingEye has provided no response whatsoever to the central grounds of my appeal, namely:
- Their non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14; and
- The absence of any evidence as to the identity of the driver.
The operator’s failure to engage with or rebut these material points may reasonably be interpreted as a concession that the requirements of Schedule 4 have not been met, and this omission significantly undermines the enforceability of their claim.
1. Failure to Address or Refute PoFA Non-Compliance
ParkingEye has failed to address or rebut the central ground of my appeal: that their Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4).
To lawfully transfer liability from the vehicle-hire company (as Keeper) to me (as Hirer), the Operator must meet the strict conditions set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4.
In particular:
• Paragraph 13(2) requires that the following documents be served with the NtK:
o (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
o (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
o (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
• Paragraph 14(1) states that a creditor may only pursue the Hirer if they are unable to pursue the Keeper and have fully complied with the requirements of Paragraph 14(2).
• Paragraph 14(2) requires that the NtH must be accompanied by:
o (a) A copy of the Notice to Keeper;
o (b) The documents listed in Paragraph 13(2).
As clearly stated in paragraph 14(2)(a), alongside the ‘Notice to Hirer’, the operator must give the hirer a copy of the notice to keeper, as well as the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2).
ParkingEye has failed to provide me (as Hirer):
• The Notice to Keeper;
• A copy of the hire agreement;
• A copy of the signed statement of liability;
• A statement from the hire company confirming the hire details.
As these documents were not included, the Operator has not met the statutory conditions under PoFA Schedule 4 for transferring liability from the Keeper to the Hirer.
Instead, their evidence bundle appears to rely solely on standard template documentation that does not satisfy the statutory requirements to pursue a Hirer.
The operator’s failure to engage with or rebut these material points may reasonably be interpreted as a concession that the requirements of Schedule 4 have not been met and that they cannot meet the conditions required to hold the Hirer liable. Without these documents, there is no legal transfer of liability under PoFA.
2. No Evidence of the Driver’s Identity
Since ParkingEye has failed to comply with PoFA and has also not provided any evidence of the driver’s identity, they are unable to pursue the Hirer (me) on any basis.
There is no legal presumption that the Hirer was also the driver. As cited in my original appeal, the ruling in VCS v Edward (2023) makes it explicitly clear that:
“It is not open to a parking company to rely on a presumption, or even the balance of probabilities, to assert that the keeper was the driver.”
This principle clearly applies to hirers as well, especially when the parking operator has failed to establish a legal basis under PoFA.
3. Operator’s Evidence is Non-Responsive
The entire operator’s submission appears to be a generic template, likely used in other unrelated appeals. It does not engage with, let alone refute, the legal points I raised.
Notably:In summary, ParkingEye has provided no evidence that supports their case against me as the Hirer, and their response appears to rely on a hope that POPLA will overlook their procedural and legal failings.
- There is no mention of the requirements under Paragraph 13(2) or 14 of PoFA;
- No attempt to rebut my analysis of their defective NtH;
- No acknowledgement of their misstatement of law in earlier correspondence where they incorrectly cited Paragraph 9 (which only applies to Notices to Keepers);
- No evidence provided to establish driver liability.
Conclusion
I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal. The Operator has failed:
- To comply with the statutory requirements to transfer liability to a Hirer;
- To produce any evidence identifying the driver; and
- To engage substantively with any of the key issues raised.
As a result, this charge is legally unenforceable against me and must be cancelled.
In particular:
• Paragraph 13(2) requires that the following documents be served with the NtH:
o (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
o (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
o (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
Well spotted. My bad. However, did they include a copy of the original NtK and the following documents with the NtH?(a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
Whilst they may have received a copy of (b) and (c) as stated on that NtH, they are obliged to include those copies with the NtH when it is issued.
1. Failure to Address or Refute PoFA Non-Compliance
ParkingEye has failed to address or rebut the central ground of my appeal: that their Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4).
To lawfully transfer liability from the vehicle-hire company (as Keeper) to me (as Hirer), the Operator must meet the strict conditions set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4.
In particular:
• Paragraph 13(2) requires that the following documents be served with the NtH:
o (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
o (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
o (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
• Paragraph 14(1) states that a creditor may only pursue the Hirer if they are unable to pursue the Keeper and have fully complied with the requirements of Paragraph 14(2).
• Paragraph 14(2) requires that the NtH must be accompanied by:
o (a) A copy of the Notice to Keeper;
o (b) The documents listed in Paragraph 13(2).
As clearly stated in paragraph 14(2)(a), alongside the ‘Notice to Hirer’, the operator must give the hirer a copy of the notice to keeper, as well as the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2). ParkingEye has failed to provide:
• The Notice to Keeper;
• A copy of the hire agreement;
• A copy of the signed statement of liability;
• A statement from the hire company confirming the hire details.
As these documents were not included, the Operator has not met the statutory conditions under PoFA Schedule 4 for transferring liability from the Keeper to the Hirer.
Instead, their evidence bundle appears to rely solely on standard template documentation that does not satisfy the statutory requirements to pursue a Hirer.
The operator’s failure to engage with or rebut these material points may reasonably be interpreted as a concession that the requirements of Schedule 4 have not been met and that they cannot meet the conditions required to hold the Hirer liable. Without these documents, there is no legal transfer of liability under PoFA.
You may want to highlight to the assessor that the operator has failed to issue a valid Notice to Hirer (NtH). What they sent you was a reissue of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) and only referred to PoFA paragraph 9 which is irrelevant for an NtH which must refer to paragraph 14 of PoFA.
It would appear that the operators system is working on "autopilot" mode and simply regurgitating appeal references to PoFA paragraph 9. As they have failed to issue a valid NtH that fully complies with paragraph 14 of PoFA, the appellant, who is the Hirer and the driver has not been identified, the operator has no standing to pursue the Hirer and the PCN must be cancelled.
POPLA Rebuttal – Response to Operator’s Evidence
Appellant: xxxx (Hirer)
POPLA Reference: xxxx
Parking Charge Notice: xxx/xxx
Vehicle: xxxx
Introduction
I note that ParkingEye has provided no response whatsoever to the central grounds of my appeal, namely:
- Their non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14; and
- The absence of any evidence as to the identity of the driver.
The operator’s failure to engage with or rebut these material points may reasonably be interpreted as a concession that the requirements of Schedule 4 have not been met, and this omission significantly undermines the enforceability of their claim.
1. Failure to Address or Refute PoFA Non-Compliance
ParkingEye has failed to include or reference the documentation required by Paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, which is mandatory if a parking operator wishes to transfer liability to a hirer.
They were required to include:
- A copy of the hire agreement;
- A copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer;
- A statement from the hire company confirming that the details are correct.
They have provided none of the above.
Instead, their evidence bundle appears to rely solely on standard template documentation that does not satisfy the statutory requirements to pursue a Hirer.
This is a key legal failing, and their silence on this matter amounts to tacit acceptance that they cannot meet the conditions required to hold the Hirer liable. Without these documents, there is no legal transfer of liability under PoFA.
2. No Evidence of the Driver’s Identity
Since ParkingEye has failed to comply with PoFA and has also not provided any evidence of the driver’s identity, they are unable to pursue the Hirer (me) on any basis.
There is no legal presumption that the Hirer was also the driver. As cited in my original appeal, the ruling in VCS v Edward (2023) makes it explicitly clear that:
“It is not open to a parking company to rely on a presumption, or even the balance of probabilities, to assert that the keeper was the driver.”
This principle clearly applies to hirers as well, especially when the parking operator has failed to establish a legal basis under PoFA.
3. Operator’s Evidence is Non-Responsive
The entire operator’s submission appears to be a generic template, likely used in other unrelated appeals. It does not engage with, let alone refute, the legal points I raised.
Notably:In summary, ParkingEye has provided no evidence that supports their case against me as the Hirer, and their response appears to rely on a hope that POPLA will overlook their procedural and legal failings.
- There is no mention of the requirements under Paragraph 13(2) or 14 of PoFA;
- No attempt to rebut my analysis of their defective NtH;
- No acknowledgement of their misstatement of law in earlier correspondence where they incorrectly cited Paragraph 9 (which only applies to Notices to Keepers);
- No evidence provided to establish driver liability.
Conclusion
I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal. The Operator has failed:
- To comply with the statutory requirements to transfer liability to a Hirer;
- To produce any evidence identifying the driver; and
- To engage substantively with any of the key issues raised.
As a result, this charge is legally unenforceable against me and must be cancelled.
Do I need to respond? If so, what should I be saying (or just re-iterating what I've already said)?Yes, you need to respond.
Thanks!
1. ASDA Bexleyheath Superstore – The Broadway, Bexleyheath DA6 7BN
2. ASDA Petrol Station – Crook Log, Bexleyheath DA6 8EQ
POPLA Appeal: Grounds – Non-compliance with PoFA 2012
I am the Hirer of the vehicle and am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on two principal grounds:1. The Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14)
To transfer liability from the Keeper (in this case, the Hire company) to the Hirer, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraphs 13 and 14 impose a series of strict requirements. These include not only the content of the Notice to Hirer, but also the obligation to enclose three specific documents, as listed in Paragraph 13(2):13(2): “The documents are— (a) a copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer under the hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm confirming that the information contained in the statement of liability is correct.”
In accordance with Paragraph 14(2)(a), the operator must, within the relevant period, give the Hirer a Notice to Hirer accompanied by:• The Notice to Keeper;
• A copy of the hire agreement;
• A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer;
• A statement from the hire company confirming the hire details.
ParkingEye has failed to provide the required documents with the NtH. This renders their attempt to transfer liability to the Hirer legally ineffective.
As per Paragraph 14(1), a creditor may only pursue the Hirer if both:• they are unable to pursue the Keeper under Paragraph 13(2); and
• they have fully met the conditions in Paragraph 14(2), including providing the required documentation.
Failure to include these documents invalidates the NtH for the purposes of PoFA, and therefore the Hirer cannot be held liable.
2. No Evidence of Driver Identity – No Presumption or Inference Permitted
As established above, the Notice to Hirer does not comply with PoFA 2012, and therefore the operator cannot transfer liability to the Hirer. In the absence of compliance with Schedule 4, liability for the charge can only rest with the driver.
Parking Eye has provided no evidence identifying the driver of the vehicle at the material time. The operator has simply issued a Notice to Hirer and proceeded on the basis that the recipient is liable.
There is, however, no legal presumption that the Hirer (or Keeper) was the driver. This has been firmly established in persuasive case law, including the appeal judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward (2023). In that case, the Circuit Judge held that:“It is not open to a parking company to rely on a presumption, or even the balance of probabilities, to assert that the keeper was the driver.”
This ruling confirms that liability cannot be inferred or assumed where a parking operator has chosen not to rely on PoFA or has failed to comply with its terms. In such circumstances, the burden of proof remains entirely with the operator to prove the identity of the driver.
As no such evidence has been provided in this case, and the NtH is non-compliant with PoFA, there is no lawful basis to pursue the Hirer. The appeal must be allowed on this ground alone.
3. Misleading & Contradictory Payment Deadlines
The NtH is misleading and contradictory, creating confusion about when payment is actually due:
The top of the NtH states: “PARKING CHARGE AMOUNT: £100. PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED”
However, the body text contradicts this by stating: “If, after 22 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the Parking Charge has not been paid in full, we will have the right to recover any amount that remains unpaid from you.”
This is misleading and non-compliant with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR 2008) because it creates uncertainty about when payment is due.
Conclusion• The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14. As such, Parking Eye has no lawful basis to transfer liability from the hire company to the Hirer.
• The operator has not provided any evidence identifying the driver, and no presumption or inference can be made. The appeal case VCS v Edward (2023, Sheffield County Court) confirms that an operator cannot rely on any assumption, inference, or “balance of probabilities” to assert that the Hirer was the driver in the absence of PoFA compliance.
• Issue clear and consistent payment terms, making the demand misleading and unfair.
For the above reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct Parking Eye to cancel the Parking Charge Notice in full.
1. The Notice to Keeper Fails to Identify the Relevant Land – No Keeper Liability Under PoFA 2012
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) allows a parking operator to hold a vehicle’s registered keeper liable only if the Notice to Keeper (NtK) strictly complies with the requirements set out in Paragraph 9.
Paragraph 9(2)(a) states that the notice must:
"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates."
The NtK issued by Parking Eye merely states “ASDA BEXLEYHEATH” as the location, without giving the full postal address or any further detail. This is wholly inadequate to satisfy the requirement to identify the “relevant land” under PoFA.
Importantly, there are two ASDA locations in Bexleyheath:
1. ASDA Bexleyheath Superstore – The Broadway, Bexleyheath DA6 7BN
2. ASDA Petrol Station – Crook Log, Bexleyheath DA6 8EQ
Without a full and specific address on the PCN, there is no way for the registered keeper to determine where the vehicle was alleged to have been parked, and no fair opportunity to verify or contest the claim. This ambiguity is material and renders the notice non-compliant with PoFA, and as such, the keeper cannot be held liable.
As a result, the NtK fails to specify “the relevant land” as required under PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(a), and Parking Eye has not met the conditions required to transfer liability to the keeper.
POPLA Appeal: Grounds – Non-compliance with PoFA 2012
I am the Hirer of the vehicle and am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on two principal grounds:1. The Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14)
To transfer liability from the Keeper (in this case, the Hire company) to the Hirer, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraphs 13 and 14 impose a series of strict requirements. These include not only the content of the Notice to Hirer, but also the obligation to enclose three specific documents, as listed in Paragraph 13(2):13(2): “The documents are— (a) a copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer under the hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm confirming that the information contained in the statement of liability is correct.”
In accordance with Paragraph 14(2)(a), the operator must, within the relevant period, give the Hirer a Notice to Hirer accompanied by:• The Notice to Keeper;
• A copy of the hire agreement;
• A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer;
• A statement from the hire company confirming the hire details.
ParkingEye has failed to provide the required documents with the NtH. This renders their attempt to transfer liability to the Hirer legally ineffective.
As per Paragraph 14(1), a creditor may only pursue the Hirer if both:• they are unable to pursue the Keeper under Paragraph 13(2); and
• they have fully met the conditions in Paragraph 14(2), including providing the required documentation.
Failure to include these documents invalidates the NtH for the purposes of PoFA, and therefore the Hirer cannot be held liable.
2. No Evidence of Driver Identity – No Presumption or Inference Permitted
As established above, the Notice to Hirer does not comply with PoFA 2012, and therefore the operator cannot transfer liability to the Hirer. In the absence of compliance with Schedule 4, liability for the charge can only rest with the driver.
Parking Eye has provided no evidence identifying the driver of the vehicle at the material time. The operator has simply issued a Notice to Hirer and proceeded on the basis that the recipient is liable.
There is, however, no legal presumption that the Hirer (or Keeper) was the driver. This has been firmly established in persuasive case law, including the appeal judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward (2023). In that case, the Circuit Judge held that:“It is not open to a parking company to rely on a presumption, or even the balance of probabilities, to assert that the keeper was the driver.”
This ruling confirms that liability cannot be inferred or assumed where a parking operator has chosen not to rely on PoFA or has failed to comply with its terms. In such circumstances, the burden of proof remains entirely with the operator to prove the identity of the driver.
As no such evidence has been provided in this case, and the NtH is non-compliant with PoFA, there is no lawful basis to pursue the Hirer. The appeal must be allowed on this ground alone.
Conclusion• The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14. As such, Parking Eye has no lawful basis to transfer liability from the hire company to the Hirer.
• The operator has not provided any evidence identifying the driver, and no presumption or inference can be made. The appeal case VCS v Edward (2023, Sheffield County Court) confirms that an operator cannot rely on any assumption, inference, or “balance of probabilities” to assert that the Hirer was the driver in the absence of PoFA compliance.
For the above reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct Parking Eye to cancel the Parking Charge Notice in full.
I copy/pasted from another thread - https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/private-parking-charge-notice-no-permit-moving-out/The case you've linked is a residential case and not a 'simple' shopping centre overstay.
Are you saying this should be removed?
Parking Eye has not demonstrated how this charge reflects a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 established that a parking charge must serve a legitimate interest and be proportionate.The Beavis case established that the charge does not have to be a GPEoL...
Parking Eye has not demonstrated how this charge reflects a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 established that a parking charge must serve a legitimate interest and be proportionate.The Beavis case established that the charge does not have to be a GPEoL...
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Parking Eye as the Hirer on the following grounds:
1. The Notice to Hirer (NtH) Fails to Comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14
The Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14, meaning liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer.
The Notice to Hirer (NtH) Fails to Comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14. To transfer liability from the Keeper to the Hirer, PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) explicitly requires that the operator provides:
A copy of the hire agreement.
A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer.
A statement signed by or on behalf of the hire company confirming that the vehicle was on hire during the alleged contravention.
Parking Eye has failed to provide any of these documents with the NtH. Without full compliance with these mandatory conditions, the Hirer cannot be held liable under PoFA.
Legal Reference: PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) states:“The creditor may not recover the charge from the hirer under paragraph 4 unless the creditor has given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) (and for the purposes of this paragraph, a reference in paragraph 6(1) or (2) to a notice to the keeper includes a reference to a notice to the hirer).”
Given the failure to comply with PoFA 2012, meaning liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer, this Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable. Therefore, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the charge immediately.
2. Misleading & Contradictory Payment Deadlines
The NtH is misleading and contradictory, creating confusion about when payment is actually due:
The top of the NtH states: “PARKING CHARGE AMOUNT: £100. PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED”
However, the body text contradicts this by stating: “If, after 22 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the Parking Charge has not been paid in full, we will have the right to recover any amount that remains unpaid from you.”
This is misleading and non-compliant with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR 2008) because it creates uncertainty about when payment is due.
3. The Charge is Disproportionate and Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
Parking Eye has not demonstrated how this charge reflects a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 established that a parking charge must serve a legitimate interest and be proportionate. This charge is excessive and not justified.
Conclusion
Given the multiple legal failures identified above, this Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable. As the operator has failed to:
Comply with PoFA 2012, meaning liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer.
Issue clear and consistent payment terms, making the demand misleading and unfair.
Justify the charge as a legitimate contractual agreement or genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Therefore, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the charge immediately.
Dear ParkingEye,
Re: Parking Charge Notice XXXXXX/YYYYYY
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
Date of Event: DD MMM YYYY
I write in response to your latest letter, which is both inaccurate and legally incoherent.
You now cite Paragraphs 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which apply solely to Notices to Keeper, not Notices to Hirer. This basic error alone would be embarrassing enough, were it not compounded by your persistent failure to grasp that:
• You did not invoke Schedule 4 in your NtH;
• You did not include copies of the documents required under Paragraph 13(2), such as the hire agreement and statement of liability;
To recap: you have issued a legally defective notice, made a baseless threat of keeper/hirer liability, misquoted legislation, and are now doubling down on your mistake with a recycled, irrelevant template letter that demonstrates either ignorance of the law or wilful misrepresentation.
You now have two options:
1. Cancel this charge immediately, recognising that pursuing it any further is futile; or
2. Issue a POPLA code, where I will refer the assessor to your PoFA failings and you can enjoy wasting the POPLA fee.
I refer you, in spirit and with appropriate legal sarcasm, to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971). Should you fail to cancel or issue a code, this matter will be escalated to the DVLA, the ICO, and the BPA with a formal complaint regarding misuse of data and breach of the KADOE contract.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
Hirer of the vehicle
14(1)If—They won’t include the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2), they never do.
(a)the creditor is by virtue of paragraph 13(2) unable to exercise the right to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges mentioned in the notice to keeper, and
(b)the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below are met,
the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer.
(2)The conditions are that—
(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;
(b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and
(c)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.
(3)In sub-paragraph (2)(a) “the relevant period” is the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the documents required by paragraph 13(2) are given to the creditor.
I am the Hirer of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Hirer of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. ParkingEye has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtH can only hold the driver liable. ParkingEye have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.